On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:04 AM, David Schleef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Are the reported granulepos of the packetno 2 and 3 correct? The dt >> value looks large. > > Those should be -4 and -2, repsectively. Otherwise, those numbers > appear correct. Conrad, I'd guess the oggz-validate test is wrong then. It's not that granulepos must be numerically non-decreasing, but that they must map to a a non-decreasing timestamp. Testing the actual field value is not technically correct, even it the dirac mapping turns out to maintain that for some choice of signedness. -r ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Schrodinger-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/schrodinger-devel
